It is amazing how easily logical priorities can be changed by constant repetition. Take the case of the euphemistically labelled ‘capital punishment’ – more accurately described as ‘execution’. As we find Australian citizens – or anyone else for that matter – facing death at the hands of some foreign government, it is natural that we might protest and plead for clemency. The problem is that by adopting individual cases, we can ignore the most potent argument in principle against this cruel and degrading process – no state has the right to kill those who break its laws.

I recently discovered reason enough to have a personal abhorrence of the death penalty. One of my ancestors, Scot William Eckford, arrived in New South Wales in 1801. In 1813 he was charged with sheep stealing and convicted. He was sentenced to death but Governor Lachlan Macquarie commuted the sentence to internal exile in Newcastle, then known as Coal River. While I am descended from William’s daughter Jane who was born ten years earlier, I am very grateful that the horror of an execution did not enter the family history.

The general point which arises from this personal anecdote is that a much more pressing case can be made in principle against any execution. The impact of capital punishment reaches far beyond the death of the immediate victim. Indeed, while some heads of state or government might argue about whether or not an offender apparently ‘deserves’ to die, they fail to ask themselves whether they deserve to make themselves guilty of murder. And in a state which claims to be democratic, this guilt extends collectively to the entire population. In the case of people on death row in Indonesia, the question which needed to be asked is whether Indonesia collectively deserves to be seen as a state which ignores universal trends and lacks the humility to grant commutation.

The prominent member of the National Party Barnaby Joyce has described capital punishment as state sanctioned murder. I agree completely with Mr Joyce about this. He has neatly described the way that states exceed their authority. No state should take upon itself the right to kill. Of course, a state has a right to defend its people, but the international community has set clear guidelines for ‘just’ defence. Killing can be justified only if there is no alternative. This implies that killing is never in cold blood. Execution of people in state custody is always ‘in cold blood’.

The resort to executions implies a degree of arrogance on the part of the state. Those states which retain the death penalty place themselves above the general humane understanding that people change, that legal processes are not necessarily perfect and that laws are themselves the result of political processes.

 The argument about deterrence seems hollow and hypocritical when governments themselves know that executions are not effective. Maybe people have the right to live free of drug dealers. However there is no evidence that executions deter drug dealing. If they were effective, then there would be no offenders today. It is worse than inaccurate to claim that executions deter. It is a lie.

In 1990, the UN’s International Literacy Year, I was privileged to be designated an ‘Adult Literacy Officer’ in a country town. ILY provided increased awareness of literacy needs in the community and afforded second-chance opportunities to people who felt that their participation in working and social life were limited because their reading and writing skills were low. As a member of Amnesty International I was also thinking about literacy as a basic human right, and one which was not distributed evenly, equitably or fairly. It was noticeable then, and probably still is, that capital punishment was likely to be eliminated in states with greater literacy rates.

It was also clear that in those states, such as parts of the USA, which retain capital punishment, a large proportion of those people condemned to die possess severely limited literacy skills. Unfortunately, low literacy skills usually correspond with other indicators of disadvantage, such as unemployment, poor housing and earlier contact with police and justice systems. Often these states accept in principle strong restrictions on the application of the death penalty to certain classes of people such as juveniles and the mentally disabled. The prevalence of appeals against the penalty suggests however, that some jurisdictions are not able to apply these guidelines. There are, it seems, degrees of mental incapacity. This comparison of literacy levels and executions reinforced my belief that capital punishment cannot be applied justly.

Nor is it possible for executions to be carried out humanely. Clearly, it would be barbaric to execute people soon after conviction because time must be allowed for appeals. But every day a person spends on ‘death row’ is a form of cruel and degrading punishment. The anguish produced cannot be easily imagined. Many methods of killing have been tried. All have been described by observers as being far more distressing than expected. The judges applying the penalty are either ignorant of its effects or else do not care.

It is not so long ago that the discourse around reform of Australia’s federal system was bogged down in the issue of ‘states’ rights’. The parties opposing reform would refer to this spurious concept to frustrate reforms demanded by the central government which has a constitutional responsibility to ensure that citizens are treated equally regardless of their residence in any particular state or territory. One astute federal judge pointed out quite correctly and explicitly, that states have no rights. They have responsibilities. Individuals have rights and all states exist to protect them. Internationally, states which claim a right to execute criminals are engaging in a similarly spurious discourse. No state, and that includes Indonesia, has any right to execute.

A former academic, Tony Smith has written extensively on a wide range of subjects as diverse as folk music and foreign policy issues in the Australian Review of Public Affairs, the Journal of Australian Studies Review of Books, Overland, the Australian Quarterly, Eureka Street, Online Opinion and Unleashed.